On 13/07/14 15:21, David Kastrup wrote:
> James writes:
>
>> On 13/07/14 11:49, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Helge Kruse writes:
>>>
Am 13.07.2014 11:57, schrieb David Kastrup:
> 4q
> Well, just write the latter version.
Well. this means "don't use q when you have accid
Hi David,
> At some point of time, one just has to accept that q is a shorthand.
> Once it becomes hard figuring out the proper semantics, we are leaving
> the shorthand realm.
Point taken…
But to imply that coming up with a logically consistent interpretation of each
possibility is disingenuou
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi all,
>
>> "chord repeats should not repeat forced/cautionary accidentals". That’s
>> pretty straightforward.
>
> Of course [because it’s 'common sense’], I agree this should be the default
> behaviour…
> But I think it would be nice if there were still a way to ov
Hi all,
> "chord repeats should not repeat forced/cautionary accidentals". That’s
> pretty straightforward.
Of course [because it’s 'common sense’], I agree this should be the default
behaviour…
But I think it would be nice if there were still a way to override that, e.g.,
q! and q? to repeat
James writes:
> On 13/07/14 11:49, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Helge Kruse writes:
>>
>>> Am 13.07.2014 11:57, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>>
4q
Well, just write the latter version.
>>> Well. this means "don't use q when you have accidentals in a chord".
>> Reminder or forced accidenta
On 13/07/14 11:49, David Kastrup wrote:
> Helge Kruse writes:
>
>> Am 13.07.2014 11:57, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>
>>> 4q
>>> Well, just write the latter version.
>> Well. this means "don't use q when you have accidentals in a chord".
> Reminder or forced accidentals, it would appear.
>
>>
